FDAI logo   ::  Site Map  ::   
Home  |  About This Website  |  Contact Us
Home » ... » Evidence for an Issue

Evidence for an Issue 3 pieces of evidence for this issue.

protections may be lost though pilots continue to rely on them (Issue #15) - Reversion to lower levels of automation may disable built-in protections, possibly leading to unsafe conditions if pilots continue to rely on them.

  1.  
  2. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Accident Report
    Evidence: "2.2.3 Flight preparation by the crew ... The training given to the pilots emphasized all the protections from which the A320 benefits with respect to its lift which could have given them the feeling, which indeed is justified, of increased safety. In particular, the demonstration of the activation of the safety features and protection of this aircraft may lead one to consider flight approaching one of the limitations (especially the one related to angle of attack) as a foreseeable flight condition since lift is guaranteed. ... The choice to inhibit the automatic go-around protection (Alpha Floor) resulted from the need to eliminate this protection if flight at 100 feet or above is planned at an angle of attack higher than the one activating this protection. The inhibition in this case can only be achieved in practice by pressing and holding the two switches placed on the throttles. After 30 seconds, inhibition becomes permanent for the rest of the flight. This decision is compatible with the objectives expressed by the Captain to maintain a height of 100 feet and seems to confirm that the incursion below 100 feet was not considered by him at this stage. In effect, below 100 feet, this protection is not active." (page 50-52)
    Strength: +4
    Aircraft: A320
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Investigation Commission of Ministry of Transport - France (1989). Final report concerning the accident which occurred on June 26th 1988 at Mulhouse-Habsheim (68) to the Airbus A 320, registered F-GFKC. Ministry of Planning, Housing, Transport and Maritime Affairs. See Resource details

  3.  
  4. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 11 of the 30 (37%) respondents reported a 4 (= agree) or 5 (= strongly agree) with pc15 protections may be lost though pilots continue to rely on them
    Strength: +2
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts. See Resource details

  5.  
  6. Evidence Type: Excerpt from Survey
    Evidence: 7 of the 30 (23%) respondents reported a 1 (=strongly disagree) or a 2 (=disagree) with pc15 protections may be lost though pilots continue to rely on them
    Strength: -1
    Aircraft: unspecified
    Equipment: automation
    Source: Lyall, E., Niemczyk, M. & Lyall, R. (1996). Evidence for flightdeck automation problems: A survey of experts. See Resource details
Flight Deck Automation Issues Website  
© 1997-2013 Research Integrations, Inc.